Re: Draft Minutes from 03-03

Good stuff  Im happy to do this. Agree very much on the importance of a
quality meeting record BTW.

Dan

On 04/03/2011 13:23, "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote:

> I would add before the line "<noah> referent" an explanation that Noah
> had called a poll asking for everyone's preference of 'meaning' vs.
> 'referent'.
> 
> I would tend to edit out lines like "<noah> RESOLUTIO:  ..." where a
> correction immediately follows. A similar case is
> 
> <noah> RESOLUTION: to change tile of issue-57 to Mechanisms for
> obtaining information about the intended
> <noah> meaning of a given URI
> <noah> meaning of a given URI and add para of description per jonathans email
> 
> which is fixed right away... don't think this adds any value to the
> record, and detracts a bit. If someone really cares they can look at
> the IRC log.
> 
> I'll make these changes if you like.
> 
> Thanks
> -Jonathan
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group
> <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com> wrote:
>> > Hi all  please find draft minutes from 03-03 call here:
>> >
>> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/03/03-minutes.html
>> >
>> > Also, text version pasted below. Please let me know if there should be any
>> > revisions.
>> >
>> > Dan
>> >
>> > ---
>> > ? [1]W3C
>> >
>> > ? ? ?[1] http://www.w3.org/
>> >
>> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? - DRAFT -
>> >
>> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?TAG telcon
>> >
>> > 03 Mar 2011
>> >
>> > ? [2]Agenda
>> >
>> > ? ? ?[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/03/03-agenda.html
>> >
>> > ? See also: [3]IRC log
>> >
>> > ? ? ?[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/03-tagmem-irc
>> >
>> > Attendees
>> >
>> > ? Present
>> > ? ? ? ? ?Larry Masinter, Jonathan Rees, Peter Linss, Noah Mendelsohn,
>> > ? ? ? ? ?Henry S. Thompson, Yves Lafon, Daniel Appelquist, John Kemp
>> >
>> > ? Regrets
>> >
>> > ? Chair
>> > ? ? ? ? ?Noah Mendelsohn
>> >
>> > ? Scribe
>> > ? ? ? ? ?Henry S. Thompson
>> > ? ? ? ? ?Daniel Appelquist
>> >
>> > Contents
>> >
>> > ? ? * [4]Topics
>> > ? ? ? ? 1. [5]IAB Panel
>> > ? ? ? ? 2. [6]interaction story for web applications
>> > ? ? ? ? 3. [7]303 related issues.
>> > ? ? * [8]Summary of Action Items
>> > ? ? _________________________________________________________
>> >
>> > ? <johnk> hmmm, I'm having trouble getting into the call...
>> >
>> > ? <ht> scribe: Henry S. Thompson
>> >
>> > ? Peter: Regrets for next week
>> >
>> > ? <johnk> johnk
>> >
>> > ? <Yves> I read the first two days, and thought they were OK.
>> >
>> > ? <jar_> have scanned the f2f minutes (for lines with my own initials
>> > ? and a bit more)
>> >
>> > ? Noah: f2f minutes read by anyone?
>> >
>> > ? Jonathan: Scanned, but not read in detail
>> >
>> > ? <johnk> FWIW, I read the first day and thought it was OK
>> >
>> > ? Yves: Read first two days carefully, since I wasn't there, they were
>> > ? fine
>> >
>> > ? <Larry> +1 approve minutes
>> >
>> > ? Noah: RESOLVED: Approve the 8--10 Feb f2f minutes
>> >
>> > ? <noah> PROPOSE: Approve minutes of 8-10 Feb 2011
>> > ? [9]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda
>> >
>> > ? ? ?[9] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda
>> >
>> > ? <noah> RESOLUTIO: Minutes of 8-10 Feb 2011
>> > ? [10]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda are approved
>> >
>> > ? ? [10] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda
>> >
>> > ? <noah> RESOLUTION: Minutes of 8-10 Feb 2011
>> > ? [11]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda are approved
>> >
>> > ? ? [11] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/08-agenda
>> >
>> > ? Noah: Some concerns about the initial draft, please try harder
>> > ? ... Minutes of 24 Feb?
>> >
>> > ? <noah> RESOLUTION: Minutes of 24 Feb 2011
>> > ? [12]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/24-minutes are approved
>> >
>> > ? ? [12] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/24-minutes
>> >
>> > ? Peter: I reviewed a bit
>> >
>> > ? Noah: John is coming back for this call for his work item.
>> > ? ... Put one thing ahead - IAB panel.
>> > ? ... Also - at f2f Dan suggested we talk about offline web
>> > ? application packaging.
>> > ? ... Also we should discuss 303 redirections.
>> >
>> > IAB Panel
>> >
>> > ? Noah: anything you'd like to spend time on, Henry?
>> >
>> > ? Henry: Not at this time.
>> >
>> > ? Noah: Anyone else?
>> >
>> > ? Larry: Relationship between scalability and registries - I had some
>> > ? thoughts.
>> > ? ... We had this issue and discussion on role of registries and IANA.
>> > ? ... We had a discussion on MIME types.
>> > ? ... Architectural issue is preference in webarch for using URIs
>> > ? rather than registered values (DTD style).
>> >
>> > ? <noah> Good point, Larry
>> >
>> > ? <jar_> jar +1 larry saying: Scalability of URI access relates to the
>> > ? registry question.
>> >
>> > ? <Larry> I was trying to talk about a somewhat vague thought
>> > ? connecting work on registries to work on scalability
>> >
>> > ? <noah> What I heard was: if you're going to encourage people to use
>> > ? URIs for things that otherwise would have been in registries, you
>> > ? tempt them to make accesses to those URIs, and we've seen that as a
>> > ? source of scalability problems.
>> >
>> > ? <Larry> if the web architecture prefers using URI-assignment rather
>> > ? than registry allocation by IANA....
>> >
>> > ? <jar_> E.g. putting the registries and schemas in URI space under
>> > ? urn: instead of http: might somehow help with scalability question.
>> > ? Yes?
>> >
>> > ? Larry: In so far as this talk at IETF is to start some discussions
>> > ? on web architecture and internet architecture: we can have topics we
>> > ? want to talk about even if we don't have answers.
>> >
>> > ? <Zakim> noah, you wanted to say it's only one bit of the scalability
>> > ? problem.
>> >
>> > ? <jar_> maybe.
>> >
>> > ? <Larry> well, if the URI used was "data:", there wouldn't have been
>> > ? a scalability issue
>> >
>> > ? Noah: I see the scalability problem as a fundamental issue for the
>> > ? web. This type of problem is one concern but not the only one that
>> > ? might arise.
>> >
>> > ? <Larry> early discussions were about unexpected flash crowds, where
>> > ? some TV commentator says "look up this cool picture at NASA" and
>> > ? suddenly NASA's web space is cut down
>> >
>> > ? Noah: For example, the home page for nytimes and cnn - these people
>> > ? aren't surprised about heavy access, but you could imaging lots of
>> > ? different resources that might have the same scalability issues.
>> >
>> > ? <Larry> [13]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-centric_networking
>> >
>> > ? ? [13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-centric_networking
>> >
>> > ? Noah: ... when you use URIs, there are scalability issues because
>> > ? people do [dereference] them inappropriately.
>> >
>> > ? Larry: I am also worried about content-centric networking... would
>> > ? like to understand this better.
>> >
>> > ? <Yves> scalability issue depends also on cache infrastructures in
>> > ? the network
>> >
>> > ? MN: [it might be premature to discuss it at the IETF meeting]
>> >
>> > ? <Zakim> ht, you wanted to add that if I put in a slide on this, I
>> > ? should add two lines about the registry<->URI connection in e.g.
>> > ? XPointer scheme names
>> >
>> > ? Henry: I think it's important to realise that there are a number of
>> > ? cases in which the boundaries between registries and URIs have been
>> > ? blurred.
>> > ? ... It's worth mentioning : we do have a very intentional hybrid
>> > ? system - the xpointer registry - a database backed registry which
>> > ? results in a URI being served for everything in the registry.
>> >
>> > ? Larry: Can you give an overview for the panel?
>> >
>> > ? Henry: Yes I think so.
>> >
>> > ? Noah: Moving on to John's topic.
>> >
>> > ? ACTION-355?
>> >
>> > ? <trackbot> ACTION-355 -- John Kemp to explore the degree to which
>> > ? AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web
>> > ? Applications -- due 2011-02-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW
>> >
>> > ? <trackbot> [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355
>> >
>> > ? ? [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355
>> >
>> > interaction story for web applications
>> >
>> > ? Noah: To frame: identification (URIs), interaction (protocols), ...
>> > ? ... when we started to look at extending work on web arch to
>> > ? application (as opposed to docuemnts) and we started to see
>> > ? interactions which are not simple request-response, John undertook
>> > ? this issue to frame the interaction issues for webapps.
>> >
>> > ? <noah> ACTION-355?
>> >
>> > ? <trackbot> ACTION-355 -- John Kemp to explore the degree to which
>> > ? AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web
>> > ? Applications -- due 2011-02-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW
>> >
>> > ? <trackbot> [15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355
>> >
>> > ? ? [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355
>> >
>> > ? <johnk>
>> > ? [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/0034.html
>> >
>> > ? ? [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/0034.html
>> >
>> > ? John: I did an investigation of awww. What I found I sent in an
>> > ? email to the TAG list.
>> >
>> > ? <noah> Email:
>> > ? [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0058.html
>> >
>> > ? ? [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0058.html
>> >
>> > ? John: the way the interaction model is currently described is over
>> > ? http.
>> >
>> > ? <noah> Links to document:
>> > ? [18]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/interaction-examples.html
>> >
>> > ? ? [18] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/interaction-examples.html
>> >
>> > ? John: some of the things I mentioned were client-side manipulation
>> > ? and generation of URIs...
>> > ? ... what is the relationship between a server-side application and
>> > ? the client-side javascript that's running and what enables the
>> > ? client-side script to know it can construct a URI reliably?
>> > ? ... comet, websocket, ajax-based polling: information rendered to
>> > ? the user is different than what was downloaded initially.
>> > ? ... In the old model, you had to be running a server to expose a
>> > ? resource on the web; now you have clients that are servers, also
>> > ? exposing client resources (e.g. gps) exposed as web resources to
>> > ? another entity.
>> > ? ... multi-party security is an issue - multiple pieces of content
>> > ? are mashed up to create a running application.
>> > ? ... More recently I wrote some examples.
>> > ? ... one is the use of websockets; another is the use of geo api to
>> > ? expose the client's location to the document they've downloaded;
>> > ? another is client-side URI generation.
>> >
>> > ? <noah> I think when we expose something like an accelerometer using
>> > ? Javascript APIs as opposed to URIs, then it's best not to call that
>> > ? a "Web resource". What we have are resources that are linkable
>> > ? through the mechanisms of the Web, others (like the acceleromotere)
>> > ? available only at the client, and others that are networked with
>> > ? non-Web protocols.
>> >
>> > ? John: I think it would be useful to use these examples as a
>> > ? framework to talk about [webapps architecture]
>> > ? ... All of these things are dependent on an eventing based model
>> > ? associated with javascript and a document object model that runs on
>> > ? the client - different from http - so different from what is
>> > ? document in awww.
>> >
>> > ? Noah: Open floor for discussion.
>> > ? ... How deep and how broad is our investigation of webapps going to
>> > ? be?
>> > ? ... is this close to a TAG finding?
>> > ? ... doesn't really draw conclusions yet.
>> > ? ... do we want to carry forward with work based on this?
>> > ? ... to elaborate some principles / best practices - terminology for
>> > ? the abstractions and good practices.
>> >
>> > ? DKA+1 to us building on John's work.
>> >
>> > ? Larry: WebApps are [where it's at]
>> >
>> > ? <jar_> mnot: "Open Source is taking the place of Open Standards"
>> >
>> > ? Noah: Do we have one or two individuals who can work aggressively on
>> > ? this - 5 to 10 hours a week to write and gain consensus - on this
>> > ? topic?
>> >
>> > ? Larry: We have a motivation to work on this in terms of starting
>> > ? some conversations ... at the IETF panel ... IETF has raised some
>> > ? issues on webapps ...
>> >
>> > ? <jar_> noah would prefer to talk about who is doing the work, rather
>> > ? than the work.
>> >
>> > ? Noah: We set ourselves a goal of writing a new section of webarch -
>> > ? new story about interaction. If we're going to write something we
>> > ? need to write it.
>> >
>> > ? Dan: I think we need to engage with a webapps community of practice
>> > ? to work on this - worried about being able to do this.
>> >
>> > ? Noah: we should be challenging that community by asking some
>> > ? questions [ / making some assertions].
>> > ? ... Webarch has good stuff like cool URIs don't change, etc..
>> > ? provides real advice.
>> > ? ... we should get to that point. Where we can say : here's good
>> > ? practice and here's bad - and here's useful terminology...
>> > ? ... We should say something specific.
>> >
>> > ? Larry: In the general problem - where we have something to say
>> > ? that's important but we don't have the resources - could we e.g. ask
>> > ? the webapps working group what should happen to awww to make it more
>> > ? relevant to them?
>> >
>> > ? Noah: Goal here is to update the TAG document.
>> > ? ... I'm frustrated we can't find the time to do this.
>> >
>> > ? Larry: What if we publish this as a blog post, ask for suggestions
>> > ? from the community?
>> >
>> > ? <johnk> I would not want to publish what I've already done as a blog
>> > ? post
>> >
>> > ? Noah: Chapters suggest terminology, they have principles, good
>> > ? practices notes...
>> >
>> > ? <jar_> What problem does web architecture solve? ... the answer
>> > ? would tell us what to do in the apps space.
>> >
>> > ? <Larry> maybe we will get some feedback from IETF meeting on what we
>> > ? need to do?
>> >
>> > ? Dan: I am happy to reach out the webapps chairs... am worried about
>> > ? the impactfulness of this proposed document to the community we are
>> > ? trying to influence.
>> >
>> > ? Noah: We committed to do some work in this space...
>> > ? ... I think you [Dan] are saying the deliverable might be premature.
>> > ? ... then I think we should stop telling the community we're going to
>> > ? do comprehensive work on webapps.
>> >
>> > ? <jar_> Every journey begins with a single step.
>> >
>> > ? Noah: I am willing to back off on the notion that one of our big
>> > ? deliverables is a comprehensive webapps architecture.
>> >
>> > ? Jonathan: I think the goal has been a good one -- in that we have
>> > ? looked at topics [in this space].
>> >
>> > ? Noah: if what we're doing is chaining from "major document" to
>> > ? "umbrella theme which is influencing a number of point pieces of
>> > ? work" then we should [be clear on that
>> > ? ... ]
>> >
>> > ? <jar_> Has to do with the TAG status report, setting W3C mgmt
>> > ? expectations.
>> >
>> > ? Jonathan: There's no crisis here -
>> > ? ... the people who did AWWW felt like there was a real reason to do
>> > ? it.
>> > ? ... one thing we need here - we should try to figure out what are
>> > ? the dangers - what are the bad things that might go wrong if we
>> > ? don't publish this.
>> >
>> > ? Noah: My perception on webarch - the TAG has principles in its
>> > ? charter; one of these is to document principles of web architecture.
>> > ? Web apps architecture f[follows on from this]. When you read webarch
>> > ? and then look at [web apps] [they don't fit together.]
>> > ? ... We should document the web architecture as used today.
>> >
>> > ? Jonathan: I think it's not just a matter of responsibility and
>> > ? charter - bad things can actually happen and we care about them.
>> >
>> > ? Henry: I don't want to lose this task. If I have time between now
>> > ? and the end of my time on the TAG this will be the next thing up
>> > ? because I think it's hugely important.
>> >
>> > ? [discussion on priorities]
>> >
>> > ? Noah: Propose we close ACTION-355 with thanks to John - then see
>> > ? what else we can propose in the short term.
>> >
>> > ? <ht> ACTION: Noah to work with HST to identify a way forward wrt
>> > ? interaction [recorded in
>> > ? [19]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/03-tagmem-minutes.html#action01]
>> >
>> > ? ? [19] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/03-tagmem-minutes.html#action01
>> >
>> > ? <trackbot> Created ACTION-536 - Work with HST to identify a way
>> > ? forward wrt interaction [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-03-10].
>> >
>> > ? <noah> ACTION-355?
>> >
>> > ? <trackbot> ACTION-355 -- John Kemp to explore the degree to which
>> > ? AWWW and associated findings tell the interaction story for Web
>> > ? Applications -- due 2011-02-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW
>> >
>> > ? <trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355
>> >
>> > ? ? [20] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/355
>> >
>> > ? close ACTION-355
>> >
>> > ? <trackbot> ACTION-355 Explore the degree to which AWWW and
>> > ? associated findings tell the interaction story for Web Applications
>> > ? closed
>> >
>> > ? <ht> action-536 due 2011-08-01
>> >
>> > ? <trackbot> ACTION-536 Work with HST to identify a way forward wrt
>> > ? interaction due date now 2011-08-01
>> >
>> > ? Noah: Now - proposals on short-term work?
>> >
>> > ? John: Larry mentioned mark N's comments - related to this issue.
>> > ? ... we could link these together....
>> >
>> > ? <noah> ACTION Dan to reach out to Web apps chair to solicit help on
>> > ? framing architecture (incluing terminology, good practice) relating
>> > ? to interaction
>> >
>> > ? <trackbot> Created ACTION-537 - Reach out to Web apps chair to
>> > ? solicit help on framing architecture (incluing terminology, good
>> > ? practice) relating to interaction [on Daniel Appelquist - due
>> > ? 2011-03-10].
>> >
>> > ? <Larry> hmmm, s/web apps chair/web apps working group/
>> >
>> > ? <jar_> larry email was sent feb 18...
>> >
>> > ? Noah: Anything else under this interaction topic? If not, let's move
>> > ? on...
>> >
>> > ? <Yves>
>> > ? [21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0128.html
>> >
>> > ? ? [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0128.html
>> >
>> > ? Noah: Please put links to this in ACTION-355 and ACTION-356.
>> >
>> > ? <johnk>
>> > ? [22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0128.html
>> >
>> > ? ? [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0128.html
>> >
>> > ? <ht> +1 to JR's proposal to regroup under a renamed ISSUE-57
>> >
>> > 303 related issues.
>> >
>> > ? <jar_> I proposed
>> > ? [23]http://www.w3.org/mid/AANLkTik5oUpZLs6MVQ5QZEtjqVjLUDWWAo0yLFiXR
>> > ? 9e0%2540mail.gmail.com
>> >
>> > ? ? [23]
>> > 
>> http://www.w3.org/mid/AANLkTik5oUpZLs6MVQ5QZEtjqVjLUDWWAo0yLFiXR9e0%2540mail
>> > .gmail.com
>> >
>> > ? <ht> +1 to JR's proposed new name for ISSUE-57 -- close enough for
>> > ? government work
>> >
>> > ? Jonathan: I did a survey of URI meaning issues... Rather than
>> > ? opening a new issue it might be better to use ISSUE-57.
>> > ? ... if we just fix the title and amend it then it will serve
>> > ? perfectly well.
>> > ? ... I found one caution from Tim.
>> >
>> > ? <jar_> @f2f timbl: Let's not re-define issues under the same number,
>> > ? that's fraud :-)
>> >
>> > ? Jonathan: but this isn't a redefinition - just a re-titling.
>> >
>> > ? Noah: Do you want to make a case for the scope / new title.
>> >
>> > ? Jonathan: The issue was opened up because of an email to the TAG
>> > ? regarding 303's - that they weren't working and urging the TAG to
>> > ? look at other ways to do the same thing.
>> >
>> > ? <noah> [24]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/16-minutes#item06
>> >
>> > ? ? [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/16-minutes#item06
>> >
>> > ? <noah> [25]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues#httpRange-14
>> >
>> > ? ? [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues#httpRange-14
>> >
>> > ? <noah> [26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Mar/0273
>> >
>> > ? ? [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Mar/0273
>> >
>> > ? <noah> [27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Mar/0092
>> >
>> > ? ? [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Mar/0092
>> >
>> > ? [some discussion on history of the issue]
>> >
>> > ? <noah> At their meeting in 16th July 2007 [$1\47] the TAG resolved
>> > ? to create a new issue, HttpRedirections-57 as a response to a
>> > ? community request
>> >
>> > ? <noah> [$1\47]
>> > ? [28]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/16-minutes#item06
>> >
>> > ? ? [28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/07/16-minutes#item06
>> >
>> > ? <noah> [29]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57
>> >
>> > ? ? [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57
>> >
>> > ? <jar_> [30]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jul/0034
>> >
>> > ? ? [30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jul/0034
>> >
>> > ? <jar_> that's giovanni's email which i consider the heart of
>> > ? issue-57
>> >
>> > ? <Larry> I don't understand what we're talking about and why we're
>> > ? taking meeting time to talk about it
>> >
>> > ? <Larry> maybe JAR and Noah can take this offline and come back with
>> > ? one or two proposals for what to do?
>> >
>> > ? Jonathan: the way I think of this - issue-14 was closed with a
>> > ? decision about how 200s are used - our alternative for those
>> > ? troubled by this is 303.
>> > ? ... years passed by ...
>> > ? ... then people started saying the solution (using 303) doesn't
>> > ? work.
>> > ? ... that's a problem that never got fixed - that I'm trying to fix
>> > ? this year.
>> > ? ... hence issue-57.
>> >
>> > ? <noah> From issue-57 description:
>> >
>> > ? <noah> At the TAG F2F of 4 March 2009
>> > ? ([31]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/04-minutes#item03), the TAG
>> > ? agreed to "split Issue-57 into two issues as edited by NM, with one
>> > ? abstention DanC". Issue 62 was opened immediately. Later issue 63
>> > ? was opened.
>> >
>> > ? ? [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/04-minutes#item03)
>> >
>> > ? <Larry> If people who are trying to deploy something don't like the
>> > ? implementation consequences of a TAG finding.... it just shows to me
>> > ? the risk of the TAG coming out with "findings" that propose
>> > ? technology solutions, without the 'direct' participation of the
>> > ? implementation community
>> >
>> > ? [discussion on whether or not issue-57 was superseded]
>> >
>> > ? <Larry> and this should be a topic of a working group, not the TAG
>> >
>> > ? <Larry> I have no problem with JAR changing issues to match his
>> > ? understanding of the issue
>> >
>> > ? <jar_> larry: The TAG made a recommendation (little R) for 303, and
>> > ? it didn't get review.
>> >
>> > ? <noah> I disagree...it didn't get formal AC review, but it got a ton
>> > ? of community review (if not complete consensus)
>> >
>> > ? <jar_> larry: People said, we tried it and it didn't work for us...
>> > ? therefore need a WG
>> >
>> > ? Larry: What should happen now is to tell people who are trying to
>> > ? engineer solutions : you should form a working group. Because we
>> > ? suggested a direction, but if it's not working then I don't think
>> > ? the response should be we should go back and review them. The
>> > ? response should be : Ok - the thing we recommended has performance
>> > ? requirements, go and form a working group to come up with something
>> > ? different.
>> >
>> > ? Noah: It could also be one of the existing semantic web working
>> > ? groups...
>> > ? ... the community has chosen not to invest before...
>> >
>> > ? Jonathan: Tim has said this is a TAG issue, not specific to RDF.
>> >
>> > ? Noah: Jonathan has made a concrete proposal - an update for issue-57
>> > ? and an agreement to use that issue to track our upcoming work on
>> > ? this (which may not be very much).
>> > ? ... going back to Jonathan's specific proposal, I am willing to say
>> > ? "OK."
>> >
>> > ? <DKA>+1 sounds OK to me.
>> >
>> > ? <Larry> whether it's forming another working group or assigning it
>> > ? to an existing one?
>> >
>> > ? <jar_> . change per proposal given here
>> > ? [32]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Mar/0000.html
>> >
>> > ? ? [32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Mar/0000.html
>> >
>> > ? <Larry> note that "Community Groups" in W3C are intended to lower
>> > ? the overhead of forming a working group
>> >
>> > ? <jar_> thanks larry.
>> >
>> > ? <noah> PROPOSAL:
>> >
>> > ? <noah> 1) Chamge issue-57 title to: At the TAG F2F of 4 March 2009
>> > ? ([33]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/04-minutes#item03), the TAG
>> > ? agreed to "split Issue-57 into two issues as edited by NM, with one
>> > ? abstention DanC". Issue 62 was opened immediately. Later issue 63
>> > ? was opened.
>> >
>> > ? ? [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/04-minutes#item03)
>> >
>> > ? <noah> 2) Add a paragraph to the description per Jonathan's email:
>> >
>> > ? <noah> "On its 2011-dd-dd telcon [$1\47] the TAG noted that members
>> > ? of
>> >
>> > ? <noah> the community (e.g. in [$1\47]) report that the performance
>> >
>> > ? <noah> characteristics and deployment complexity of using 303
>> >
>> > ? <noah> redirects leave them feeling that they have little option but
>> >
>> > ? <noah> to use 200 responses for this purpose, at variance with the
>> >
>> > ? <noah> TAG's httpRange-14 resolution [$1\47]."
>> >
>> > ? <noah> PROPOSAL:
>> >
>> > ? <noah> 1) Chamge issue-57 title to: "Mechanisms for obtaining
>> > ? information about the intended
>> >
>> > ? <noah> meaning of a given URI"
>> >
>> > ? <noah> Noodling on this:
>> >
>> > ? Noah: any others worried about use of word "meaning"?
>> >
>> > ? <noah> 1) Chamge issue-57 title to: "Mechanisms for obtaining
>> > ? information about the referent of a URI"
>> >
>> > ? Larry: You can't ever determine the intended meaning - my worry is
>> > ? the word "intended."
>> > ? ... A design goal of URIs is to have uniformity of meaning.
>> >
>> > ? <Yves> I am for 'intended meaning', to avoid 'intended semantic'
>> >
>> > ? [debate on the meaning of meaning]
>> >
>> > ? <Larry> i don't like "intended" is that it begs the question of who
>> > ? intends it
>> >
>> > ? <Larry> depends on what the meaning of 'is' is
>> >
>> > ? <Yves> who intends it... whoever minted the URI
>> >
>> > ? <Larry> issue-57?
>> >
>> > ? <trackbot> ISSUE-57 -- The use of HTTP Redirection -- open
>> >
>> > ? <trackbot> [34]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57
>> >
>> > ? ? [34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57
>> >
>> > ? <Larry>
>> > ? duri:2006:[35]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57
>> >
>> > ? ? [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57
>> >
>> > ? Noah: who prefers meaning and who prefers referent
>> >
>> > ? <noah> referent
>> >
>> > ? <Larry> meaning
>> >
>> > ? <Yves> meaning
>> >
>> > ? <DKA> meaning
>> >
>> > ? <jar_> +1 meaning but not important enought to quibble about
>> >
>> > ? <Larry> actually,
>> > ? tdb:2006:[36]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57
>> >
>> > ? ? [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57
>> >
>> > ? <jar_> 'individual'
>> >
>> > ? <noah> RESOLUTION: to change tile of issue-57 to Mechanisms for
>> > ? obtaining information about the intended
>> >
>> > ? <noah> meaning of a given URI
>> >
>> > ? <noah> meaning of a given URI and add para of description per
>> > ? jonathans email
>> >
>> > ? <noah> RESOLUTION: Change title of ISSUE-57 to "Mechanisms for
>> > ? obtaining information about the meaning of a given URI" and add
>> > ? paragrph of description per Jonathan's email
>> >
>> > ? Noah: OK - thanks for your patience with this. Our next call next
>> > ? week. Let's adjourn for now.
>> >
>> > ? <noah> Jonathan: please leave some tracks in the issue description
>> > ? to point out when/why it was changed.
>> >
>> > Summary of Action Items
>> >
>> > ? [NEW] ACTION 356: [37]Noah to work with HST to identify a way
>> > ? forward wrt interaction
>> >
>> > ? ? [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/536
>> >
>> > ? [NEW] ACTION 357: [38]Dan to reach out to Web apps chair to solicit
>> > ? help on framing architecture (incluing terminology, good practice)
>> > ? relating to interaction
>> > ? [End of minutes]
>> > ? ? _________________________________________________________
>> >
>> > ? ? [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/537
>> >
>> >
>> > ? ?Minutes formatted by David Booth's [39]scribe.perl version 1.135
>> > ? ?([40]CVS log)
>> > ? ?$Date: 2011/03/03 23:23:31 $
>> >
>> > ? ? [39] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
>> > ? ? [40] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
>> >
>> >
> 

Received on Friday, 4 March 2011 13:56:28 UTC